After Virtual Interaction With Alleged 'Missing' Victim Of Ramesh Jakriholi Scandal, Karnataka HC Disposes Habeas Plea

The father had approached the court claiming that his daughter had been unlawfully detained in an undisclosed location and that he has reasons to doubt the complicity of the 2nd respondent Special Investigating Team (constituted to probe the case) and also an advocate.

Advocate Kiran Jawali along with Advocate P.Prasanna Kumar, appearing for SIT, contended that unsubstantiated allegations are made against their clients and that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the same. Further, it was submitted that SIT personnel visited residence of the so called 'detenue' on 29.05.2021 and their interaction with her prima facie shows that she has been residing in the said place on her volition and that she chooses to be incommunicado qua her parents, for her own discrete reasons.

As the submissions of SIT were denied by the parents and he expressed apprehensions about the safety of his daughter, the court directed the Registrar General, to immediately visit the residence of the detenue and from there make her speak to the Court over Whatsapp Video Call.

The Registrar General T.G. Shivashankare Gowda accompanied by Joint Registrar K.S.Varalakshmi, visited the residence of the 'detenue' and had an interaction with her and they also organised an interaction via video conferencing between her and the court.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, having interacted with the victim said "The story emerging from the petition as to forcible detention is not true and that the version asserted by the respondents that petitioner's daughter is voluntarily residing incognito is true."

Further, the court said "The petitioner's daughter X, during the course of interaction, thrice repeated that she does not, for the present, desire to interact with any one including her parents and that she would have interaction with them in due course and after the 'dust' settles down. Since, X is an engineering graduate and obviously is major by age; she appears to have worldly knowledge, enough to decide where to reside and with whom to interact; this Court, therefore, has not much say in the matter, whatever be the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-parent."

The court clarified that "Disposal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of Miss X, seeking from the State and its instrumentalities, security of life and protection of property, if need be."

It concluded by saying "In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that no relief need be granted in this petition and accordingly the petition is disposed of, costs having been made easy."